[lbo-talk] how a non-market economy would work - WAS Re: socialist response to hayek

Philip Pilkington pilkingtonphil at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 18:20:20 PDT 2009


On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:32 PM, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
> Allin F. Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott, "Information and Economics:
>>> A Critique of Hayek."
>>> http://www.reality.gn.apc.org/econ/hayek.htm
>>> _
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That really is a fine piece of writing. Was I the only one though that was
>> a
>> little disconcerted by the authors' argument. I don't mean this from any
>> logical or rational point of view - indeed their article was extremely
>> tight
>> and one wouldn't be hard pushed to see something of the sort eventually
>> come
>> into existence, this especially in light of the disastrous results of
>> today's potent combination of misinformation and human stupidity.
>>
>> What really irked me though was their discussions of the "single mind".
>>
>
> [....]
>
> Now the theory being put forward
>> here seems to be something like a technocratic society run by a giant
>> computer which itself ran along the lines of perfect
>> exchange/identity/equivalence. Thus after dismissing Hayek's "director"
>> figure they sneak him in the back door... in the form of some sort of
>> giant
>> computer!
>>
>> This raises an awful lot of questions and not merely cultural ones, like
>> what such a society would look like and how desirable living in it would
>> be.
>> It also, in my mind at least, raises questions such as: what exactly
>> happens
>> when you have a computer that follows two basic axioms: exchange and
>> growth?
>>
>>
>
>
> Cockshott and Cottrell published a book in 1994, _Toward A New Socialism_,
> where they laid out how this system works in detail. I just went back and
> re-read/re-skimmed it. It really is a remarkable work. The authors are
> mathematicians and/or computer scientists, and they've obviously studied the
> history and theory of economic planning quite thoroughly. Their book
> fearlessly faces up to all the difficult issues involved in running a
> non-market economy, with a minimum of handwaving, and comes up with what
> really seem - to me, at least - like the best possible solutions.
>
> They've put the entire book online, by the way, here:
> http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/<http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/>
>
> As a public service, and to illustrate what a non-market economy might look
> like (or might have to look like), below I've written a brief summary of how
> the Cockshott/Cottrell system works. It's a full-length, heavily detailed
> book and I've done this hastily, so I may have misunderstood or
> misrepresented some points. (Corrections welcome.)
>

Okay... I'm going to have a serious look over this argument from an economic point of view and I'll reply in a day or two. This because I think that it really does hold merit. I also think that this "mode-of-production" may become a reality in the future - and without any attempt to oppose it. I mean: what the hell is Capital today but information? This is the key. Capital floats like a lily upon the pond of society.

There's nothing mythic or idealistic about this. We quite literally calculate almost every move we make in terms of this so-called capital today. But this "capital" has proved an illusion and our "moves" have proved to be in a self-destructive direction.

Basically, I agree that "capital" simply can't function any more - personally I think this has been the case for years - but I'm not sure that something can simply replace it.

However, my current stance from a social point of view still holds up. Namely: running a society through a giant computer which adheres to bourgeois principles will probably inevitably lead to a very oppressive society



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list